M/S. Sri Sai Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, did not comment on the merits of the contentions raised. Instead, acknowledging the petitioner's request for liberty to prefer an appeal, the Court granted the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal within a period of two weeks. This appeal is to be filed with the statutory pre-deposit and a delay condonation application. The Court directed that the appellate authority would consider the question of delay sympathetically, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. If satisfied regarding the delay, the appellate authority would proceed to decide the appeal on its merits in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty, and no order as to costs was made.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Sai Enterprises, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging an Order-in-Original No. 30/2024-25-Adjn.(GST)AC dated 13.08.2024, read with a Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 21.08.2024, for the financial year 2019-20. The order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (Respondent No. 1). The petitioner sought to declare the order as void, arbitrary, illegal, ex parte, passed in violation of natural justice, without jurisdiction, and contrary to Section 16(5) of the CGST Act. The petitioner also sought liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order, acknowledging potential delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original No. 30/2024-25-Adjn.(GST)AC dated 13.08.2024, read with the Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 21.08.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax for FY 2019-20, is void, arbitrary, illegal, ex parte, passed in violation of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, and contrary to Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, thereby violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the retrospectively inserted Section 16(5) of the CGST Act. The primary relief sought was liberty to prefer an appeal, acknowledging that some delay might have occurred in filing it, and requesting sympathetic consideration for condonation of delay. Respondents' contention: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submitted that the petitioner was at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned orders, taking all available grounds in law and on facts.